VICTORY FOR MARK JANUS

The Magazine of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy JULY/AUGUST 2018

VICTORY FOR MARK JANUSFREEDOM FOR ALL PUBLIC WORKERS PAGE 12

4Michigan's Labor Revolution

5Mackinac Center Helps

Current and Retired Teachers Defend Against

Union Claims

6Hopping for Liberty

7Lawmakers Looking to

Close the Session Strong, Move Major Reforms

8November Elections Could Bring January Troubles for

Public Charter Schools

10The Mackinac Center Welcomes the 2018

Summer Interns

11Can a Scorecard Change

an Issue?

12Victory for Mark Janus

How the Mackinac Center's years advancing worker freedom in Michigan have paid off across

the country

15What's Wrong with Bail

Policy in MichiganNew research kicks off

coalition devoted to safe and effective practices

16Thirty Years of

Climate Concerns And technology and efficiency

are still our best bet

18Beer Glut: The

Overregulation of Alcohol in Michigan

Event examines how and why state should reduce alcohol regulation

19A Fond Farewell

20Thank You For Telling Us

What Matters to You

The Whistlerby John Grisham

Public policy is my job, and I enjoy reading books on economics and political philosophy. But I’m also a big fan of novels, so I especially enjoyed John Grisham's recent book, "The Whistler," which combines fiction and policy. It’s a thriller involving a casino in Florida, a local judge and a whistleblower working to expose their corruption. As in much of his other work, Grisham does a good job of providing a backstory. Here it focuses on the positives and negatives of the gaming money flowing from the casino to the local Native American tribe and the bad incentives it creates. This is a good one to add to your summer reading collection.

Explore this issue

JARRETT SKORUP RECOMMENDS

BLOGKeep up to date on the latest policy stories from Mackinac Center analysts.

Mackinac.org/blog

MICHIGAN VOTESWant to know what your legislator (and others) have been voting for? MichiganVotes.org helps keep Michigan politicians accountable to their constituents.

MichiganVotes.org

CAPCONOur flagship news source for the state of Michigan. Breaking news like never before.

MichCapCon.com

DATABASESLabor contracts, superintendent salaries, school grading and more. Our online databases provide easy access to important information.Mackinac.org/databases

"Michigan’s most prominent conservative

think tank and most litigious progressive

organization working together? Yes they are, and their alliance has attracted

the notice of others far more important than your humble columnist. What

brought them together was the Michigan civil asset

forfeiture statute."

— Lawrence Glazer Retired Ingham County judge and former legal advisor to Gov. Jim Blanchard, writing in Dome Magazine on the Mackinac Center working with allies across the spectrum for good policy reform.

Introducing the new and improved Michigan Capitol Confidential website!

www.MichCapCon.com

Bigger Images

Easier to Read

Free Resources

Improved Layout

IMPACT 4 July/August 2018 mackinac.org IMPACT 5 July/August 2018 mackinac.org

Michigan has experienced a quiet revolution, resulting in a noticeable economic turnaround. The grim news is well-known: The state underwent a one-state recession during the first decade of the century — which included Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s two terms in office — with 805,000 jobs lost. The drop in per capita personal income was among the worst experienced by any state at any time since the 1930s. In January 2011, statewide unemployment was at 11 percent — and 22.2 percent in Detroit.

By all these measures, the state is in a stronger position now.

But why?

Perhaps it was the repeal of economically harmful corporate and personal property taxes, some say. And eliminating regulations and balancing the budget certainly helped. Some might point to Detroit’s comeback, or even the perception of a comeback.

While applauding those changes, I offer a different theory. A critical factor was the state’s effort to re-evaluate the influence of unions in the public arena. Government unions inevitably negotiate in one direction — in favor of larger and more costly public programs. Consequently, personal and corporate resources that could generate capital and prosperity are instead redistributed through the apparatus of the state. But Michigan’s leaders have, thankfully, systematically addressed some of the drivers of bloated, inefficient government.

Here are just some of the reforms the Mackinac Center supported and the state government enacted in the last seven years:

• Reducing the scope of school/union negotiations; the issues no longer bargained over include teacher evaluations, layoff decisions, employee discipline and merit pay.

• Ending project labor agreements, which award government construction projects to unionized firms and increase construction costs.

• Requiring public employees to pay 20 percent of health insurance costs, a share previously often set at zero.

• Prohibiting the use of taxpayer resources to collect union dues.

• Enacting a right-to-work law for both private sector and most public sector

employees, which means a union can no longer get an employee fired for declining to financially support it.

(In its June 2018 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court extended right-to-work to public safety employees, who had not been

covered by Michigan’s law.)

• Extending, via the Michigan Supreme Court, the right-to-work law to state employees.

• Requiring government unions to report to their members details about their spending for collective bargaining, contract administration and grievances.

• Prohibiting school board members from voting on a union contract if they have a family member employed by the district.

• Moving school board elections to November in even-numbered years, thereby avoiding low-turnout stealth elections.

• Shutting down three illegal unionization schemes, liberating 85,000 people from forced unionism: day care providers, home help providers and graduate student research assistants.

• Enacting historic pension reform for public school employees.

• Repealing the state’s archaic prevailing wage law, which mandated union wages for public construction projects. The repeal is projected to save state and local governments hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

• Helping, through the Mackinac Center’s educational campaign, 30,000 school employees exercise their new right-to-work options.

These reforms have inherent value but also serve as a signal that Michigan is serious about its comeback. No state (with the possible exception of Wisconsin) has accomplished more in the same period of time.

Compare Michigan to Illinois — a state with little prospect of sweeping labor reforms as long as Democrats hold the legislature there. Since 2010, job growth in Michigan has been 60 percent stronger than in Illinois. And Michigan has gone from losing 1,900 people to Illinois in 2010 to gaining 2,600 people from there in 2016. ¬

Michigan's Labor Revolution

MICHAEL J. REITZ

140 West Main Street, P.O. Box 568Midland, Michigan 48640 989-631-0900, Fax 989-631-0964www.mackinac.org [email protected]

IMPACT is published six times a year by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, tax-exempt research and educational institute classified under section 501(c)(3) of the IRS code.

GENEVA RUPPERT WISE Editor

ILIA ANDERSON Designer

Hon. Clifford W. Taylor, Chairman

Retired Chief Justice, Michigan Supreme Court

Joseph G. Lehman, PresidentMackinac Center for Public Policy

Jim Barrett Retired President & CEO, Michigan Chamber of Commerce

Dulce M. Fuller Owner, Woodward and Maple

Daniel J. Graf Chief Investment Officer, Amerisure Mutual Holdings, Inc.

Richard G. Haworth Chairman Emeritus, Haworth, Inc.

Kent B. HerrickPresident and CEO, Thermogy

J.C. Huizenga President, Westwater Group

Edward C. Levy Jr. President, Edw. C. Levy Co.

Rodney M. Lockwood Jr.President, Lockwood Construction Company, Inc.

Joseph P. Maguire President, Wolverine Development Corporation

Richard D. McLellan Attorney, McLellan Law Offices

D. Joseph OlsonRetired Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Amerisure Companies

Donald AlexanderWestern Michigan University

Thomas BertonneauSUNY - Oswego

Brad BirzerHillsdale College

Peter BoettkeGeorge Mason University

Theodore BolemaThe Free State Foundation

Michael ClarkHillsdale College

Matt CoffeyCentral Michigan University

Dan CraneUniversity of Michigan Law School

Shikha DalmiaReason Foundation

Chris DouglasUniversity of Michigan - Flint

Jefferson EdgensUniversity of Wyoming

Ross EmmettArizona State University

Sarah EstelleHope College

Hugo EyzaguirreNorthern Michigan University

Tawni FerrariniNorthern Michigan University

Burton FolsomHillsdale College (ret.)

John GretherNorthwood University

David HebertAquinas College

Michael HicksBall State University

Ormand HookMecosta-Osceola ISD

Robert HunterMackinac Center for Public Policy

Harry HutchisonGeorge Mason University School of Law

David JandaInstitute for Preventative Sports Medicine

Annette KirkRussell Kirk Center

David LittmannMackinac Center for Public Policy

Dale MatcheckNorthwood University

Charles MeiserLake Superior State University (ret.)

Glenn MootsNorthwood University

George Nastas IIIMarketing Consultants

Todd NesbitBall State University

John PaffordNorthwood University (ret.)

Mark PerryUniversity of Michigan - Flint

Lawrence W. ReedFoundation for Economic Education

Gregory RehmkeEconomic Thinking/ E Pluribus Unum Films

Steve SafranekPrivate Sector General Counsel

Howard SchwartzOakland University

Martha SegerFederal Reserve Board (ret.)

James SheehanDeutsche Bank Securities

Rev. Robert SiricoActon Institute

Bradley SmithCapital University Law School

Chris SurprenantUniversity of New Orleans

Jason TaylorCentral Michigan University

John TaylorWayne State University

Richard K. VedderOhio University

Prof. Harry Veryser Jr.University of Detroit Mercy

John Walter Jr.Dow Corning Corporation (ret.)

Mike WintherInstitute for Principle Studies

Gary WolframHillsdale College

Board of Directors

Board of Scholars

LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT


With the incredible relief provided by the victory won by Mark Janus at the U.S. Supreme Court, public employees will no longer pay either dues or fees to a union unless they choose to. Compulsory payments are a thing of the past, which is a huge victory for employees.

But what about those who are being prosecuted for not paying unions in the past? In the Roman pantheon, the god Janus had two faces because he was the god of transitions, and could, therefore, look forward and backward at the same time. But in Michigan, so far, Janus only looks forward; its implications for past actions are not yet clear. Many teachers who left their union because of the state’s 2012 right-to-work law are being pursued by the Michigan Education Association for past dues — often dues that they do not even owe. The MEA has been pushing forward with lawsuits and collection agency actions against some of the teachers who left the union, seeking dues and fees. The Mackinac Center is representing two of them.

Michael Fernhout left the union in September 2015. So it came as a bit

of a surprise when the MEA sued him for not paying any agency fees for the 2015-16 school year. Still, it wasn’t a total shock when the process server tracked him down to hand him the papers saying that he’d been sued, since he had heard similar stories about other teachers. But the sting of being sued by someone who erroneously claimed that he hadn’t paid his bills still hurt.

When Fernhout left the union, his Wyoming school district had in place a new contract with the MEA affiliate, which should have made him free to leave the union with no financial obligation. Nevertheless, the lawsuit alleges that he still must pay. During a preliminary hearing, the presiding judge said that the MEA had surpassed a well-known credit card company in bringing debt-collection lawsuits to his courtroom. “What’s in your wallet?” seems to be the MEA’s new slogan.

Judy Digneit also was surprised when the MEA took legal action against her. After all, she had retired. But one day, she came to the door in her nightgown while watching the British royal wedding, only to be informed

that she was being sued. The union

alleged that she owed dues for the

2015-16 school year, even though

she opted out of the union in 2015 —

twice. Before the MCLF won a victory

allowing MEA members to withdraw

at any time of the year, they were

only allowed to leave the union during

the month of August. And Judy did

leave in August, sending a letter to

the union as required. But the MEA

claimed it didn't receive her letter

the first time, so she sent it again in

September, keeping copies of both to

prove she sent them.

So for public employees who wish

to leave their union, the fight is far

from over. Unions will put up every

roadblock they can against employees

who exercise their rights. And the

fight for those who left a long time

ago still goes on, as the union comes

after them with debt collectors. Even

retirees are not free from the union’s

grasp. And the Mackinac Center Legal

Foundation has heard from teachers

who are willing to pay dues they don’t

believe they owe, just to avoid the

stress of a lawsuit. At least for a while,

the fight goes on. ¬

Mackinac Center Helps Current and Retired Teachers Defend Against Union Claims

Michael Fernhout, a teacher in the Wyoming school district


AN INTERVIEW WITH A SUPPORTER

This issue: Todd and Stacey Taylor

Family dinner conversations have

become increasingly rare and often-

dreaded social occasions in our modern

world. This has not been the case for

Mackinac Center supporters Todd and

Stacey Taylor. Their adult children

share their views on free-market

issues of the day, something the Taylors

attribute to encouraging the exchange

of ideas and opinions at the dinner

table as they raised their family.

Todd knew by his high school

graduation that he wanted to be in

business. His grandfather owned

a business and his mother had a

keen business mind. A free-market

perspective was molded during his

college years at Northwood University,

where Larry Reed, who later served as

the Mackinac Center’s president for

20 years, was one of his first professors.

The Taylors acted on that perspective

by giving to the Mackinac Center after

they saw a different college they had

enjoyed a connection with start to drift

on matters of principle.

Before the Taylors began splitting

their time between Naples, Florida,

and Greenville, Michigan, Todd

owned and operated a manufacturing

company he started in his hometown.

Upon retirement, he was looking for a

passion that would keep him busy for

20 hours a week. He found that — and

more hours than he bargained for —

at the site of a defunct country club

in Greenville. The Taylors purchased

the property in 2008 and were free to

develop the land in 2011.

Montcalm County’s sandy, loamy soil

and proximity to the 45th parallel

make it a good place for hops farms.

The growing season coincides nicely

with the Taylor’s schedule, including

the time they wish to spend in Florida.

After others attempted to revive the

old golf course, to no avail, the Taylors

were excited to “go back to nature” with

the farm.

There are approximately 16 acres of

hops on the property, with the first

parcels of land, known in the industry

as “yards,” being planted 19 months

ago. As perennials, hops live for up to

15 years but take three years to achieve

a 100 percent yield. They will be ready

for harvest by the end of August.

While the Taylors have only been

actively engaged in this new

endeavor for 18 months, they have

already navigated what they view as

overregulation. While they had long

supported Mackinac Center ideas on

the grounds of principle, they now

have professional reasons as well. They

have followed ideas such as regulatory

capture and events like the Issues and

Ideas “Beer Glut” panel (see page 18).

Todd is quick to remind friends and

partners that deregulation made the

current industry they are a part of

possible. The Taylors and the Mackinac

Center would both like to see the

state lower excise taxes and licensing

fees for farmers and craft brewers

in Michigan.

While many attributes make the

Taylors unique supporters, their zest

for life and eagerness to try new things

at any stage in life are shared by many

friends of the Mackinac Center. To

learn more about how you can make

an impact for liberty by joining the

Mackinac Center in a philanthropic

way, or request a dinner conversation

of your own, you can reach us at

(989)-631-0900.

Hopping for

Liberty


Lawmakers Looking to Close the Session Strong, Move Major Reforms

In just the past few weeks, the Michigan Legislature has passed bills repealing union-mandated wages on government

construction jobs and establishing work requirements for able-bodied residents receiving government-paid health care.

Lawmakers in the state House have also passed bills requiring a criminal conviction prior to civil asset forfeiture

and preventing cities from adding new occupational licensing laws or adding regulations above and beyond what the

state mandates.

Here is a summary of the bills:

Prevailing Wage

The law mandating union wages on public projects has been around for more than 50 years, leading to higher

costs for taxpayers, city councils, county commissioners, universities and every other government body. Repealing

the law is a giant step toward more efficient building projects for roads, bridges and other public assets.

Other important bills are moving or have moved through the state House but still need to be

passed by the Senate and signed by the governor.

These are all huge steps when it comes to reforming government — and they are all major

Mackinac Center priorities. Legislators should be applauded for their work.

Medicaid Work Requirements

A new bill ushered through by Sen. Mike Shirkey requires able-bodied adults on Medicaid to work. This helps ensure the program works for those it is meant to help — namely poor children and the disabled — while encouraging work,

which is a good thing.

Licensing

The Michigan House passed House bills 5955-5965. Rep. Jim Lower, who sponsored two of the bills, led the effort

to limit the licensing currently done by cities and prevent new laws going forward. Also recently introduced is

House Bill 6114 from Rep. Lana Theis, which sets up a review system for occupational licenses already on the

books. House bills 6110-6113 from Rep. Brandt Iden, meanwhile, allow people with a criminal background to

more easily get back into the labor force.

Civil Forfeiture

The Michigan House passed HB 4158, sponsored by Rep. Peter Lucido, which requires a criminal

conviction for most cases before the government takes ownership of a person’s property. While

forfeiture is a necessary tool, protections need to be in place, especially considering the nearly

1,000 people who lost their assets to the practice last year despite criminal charges being dismissed

or never filed.


As the fall elections approach, a

dangerous storm may be looming on

the horizon for educational choice in

Michigan. Parents whose

children have benefited

from charter schools or

other options soon may be pressed to

take a stand to secure their rights.

The struggle over school choice in

Michigan has more deeply partisan

roots than in most places. Though

public charter schools haven’t been

universally favored anywhere, in

most states they were launched

with key support from

Democratic leaders.

It wasn't that long ago

an African-American Democratic

president touted charter schools

as "incubators of innovation" and

declared they "play an important

role in our country's education

system." Sure, there was tension and

disagreement within his party over the

issue, and he never embraced a broader

vision for parental choice. But today,

President Barack Obama's support

of charters seems like a distant

dream. What once was a respectable

nonpartisan position has fallen out of

favor with a harsh backlash against

President Donald Trump and his

education secretary, Betsy DeVos.

BEN DEGROW

EDUCATION POLICY

November Elections Could Bring January Troubles for

Public Charter Schools

"We must outlaw for-profit charter schools in Michigan."— Shri Thanedar


The stakes for Michigan's children

and indeed the whole state are very

real. Benign neglect is no longer

an option for aspiring Democratic

leaders. Opposition to charters

has become a litmus test for major

candidates, including those who want

to be Michigan's next governor.

Democratic front-runner Gretchen

Whitmer has staked her candidacy on

reining in parents' options. According

to her campaign website, "We cannot

continue to let Michigan’s charter

schools fail our kids." Her campaign's

education plan hints at a variety of

new special regulations focused on

charters, though she misleads voters

by selling the proposals as providing

fairness and balance.

Never mind that charter schools

continue to exist because families

have pursued them to escape other

options that didn't work as well.

Never mind multiple studies finding

the average Michigan student learns

significantly more by switching to a

charter school, or that charters get

significantly better bang for the buck.

The rhetoric coming from

Whitmer's primary political rivals

is even stronger than her own. At a

debate on Mackinac Island, fellow

progressive Abdul El-Sayed repeated

an unfounded theory to explain

Michigan's poor national showing.

He employed a host of political

buzzwords to scapegoat "a Betsy

DeVos agenda" and "corporate-backed

charter schools."

But Shri Thanedar may have taken

the cake with his blunt statement:

"We must outlaw for-profit charter

schools in Michigan." (Whitmer has

fashioned herself more moderate by

only explicitly calling to stop their

expansion.) Of course, technically,

"for-profit charter schools" do not

exist, and Michigan's conventional

districts pay profit-making companies

far more for various services than do

the charters Thanedar wants to ban.

These candidates' statements are

not just empty appeals to a hostile

segment of primary election voters.

Adverse action in 2019 and beyond

remains a real threat, more so than

when Jennifer Granholm presided

over the governor’s office. Obligatory

attacks on choice and charter schools

now line the Democrats' path to

political prestige.

The party's Lansing lawmakers

already see charter schools as thieves,

“stealing” money (as Rep. Kristy Pagan

of Canton put it) rightfully meant for

the current system. Next year, anti-

choice legislation could get a serious

hearing, legislation a potential Gov.

Whitmer or Thanedar appears more

than ready to sign.

Even without a friendly Legislature,

though, an anti-choice executive

could make university board

appointments that undermine

the key authorizers who support

and hold accountable most of the

state's charters.

A shift in power at the State Capitol

would also embolden leaders in

Detroit who are threatened by their

increasingly successful education

rivals. Even with Republican

majorities in the Legislature,

they nearly secured significant

restrictions to charters in 2016. The

same Legislature had to pass several

laws to stop the Detroit school district

from blocking a successful charter

from buying a new building needed

for its growth. The superintendent

who advocated for the restrictions

also has threatened to pull the plug on

charters authorized by his district.

When it comes to the state of

educational freedom in Michigan,

a different political environment is

coming. Either the Mackinac Center

will have to dig in to fight more

defensive battles, or we will be able to

expand our focus on helping students

secure access to additional effective

learning options.

The good news is that it's not too

late to awaken to the threat and

opportunity that lies before us. ¬

Ben DeGrow is director of education policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

"We cannot continue to let Michigan’s charter schools fail our kids."— Gretchen Whitmer

IMPACT 9 July/August 2018 mackinac.org


The Mackinac Center Welcomes the 2018 Summer Interns

While some college students lounge

by a lake and soak in the rays, this

year’s group of summer interns at the

Mackinac Center are hard at work

assisting our policy staff. Our bright

and ambitious students are willing to

sacrifice some fun in the sun for the

ideals of personal freedom.

Returning for his second summer,

this year’s fiscal policy intern is

Chase Slasinski, an incoming

junior at Michigan State University.

Slasinski attends the James Madison

Residential College of Public Affairs,

where he studies political theory

and constitutional democracy

and economics.

Garrick Anderson is also returning

for his second summer, as the Center’s

environmental policy intern. Anderson

has a long background in homeschool

debate as a member of the Christian

Communicators of America. He also is

an assistant coach of the Kairos Debate

Club of the tri-city area.

The communications team is thrilled

to welcome back Taylor Piotrowski,

who returns from Valparaiso

University in Indiana. Piotrowski is

going into her senior year studying

political science and communications.

She enjoys playing the trumpet and is

also a big fan of Thomas Jefferson.

This year’s research intern position is

filled by Andrew Houser, a graduate

of Aquinas College in Grand Rapids,

Michigan, where he studied political

science, Spanish and international

studies. In his free time, he enjoys

sports, watching movies and spending

time with friends.

Joining the communications team,

Susannah Barnes is a rising

sophomore at Grove City College in

Pennsylvania, where she studies

economics and communications.

Barnes is a member of her school’s

debate team and also enjoys dancing

and musical theatre.

Joining our VoteSpotter Project is

Matt Vailliencourt, a senior at the

University of Michigan, where he

majors in political science. His favorite

hobbies include photography, playing

guitar and kayaking.

Garrett Heise, an upcoming graduate

of Central Michigan University, joins

the Center as this year’s advancement

and events intern. Heise, who studied

recreation and event management

as well as professional sales, is a

prolific reader and enjoys exercise and

lakeside relaxation.

Joining the Center all the way from

California is Abigail Hoyt, this year’s

education policy intern. Hoyt received

her degree in political science from

Azusa Pacific University, and in her

free time she enjoys reading, going

to the ocean and finding quaint

beach towns.

Aaron Lehman is this year’s Capitol

Confidential intern. Lehman hails

from right here in Midland and plans

to attend Grove City College to study

biology this fall. He enjoys spending

time outside, bird watching, reading

classic literature and music.

The graphic design team is pleased to

welcome Emily Kellogg, an incoming

sophomore at Ferris State University.

She studies graphic design and

marketing and is a fan of anime, art,

video games and reading. ¬


From left to right: Aaron Lehman, Garrick Anderson, Chase Slasinski, Abigail Hoyt, Andrew Houser, Taylor Piotrowski, Garrett Heise, Susannah Barnes, Matt Vailliencourt, Emily Kellogg


Can a Scorecard Change an Issue?

We’ve had long-standing opposition to

the state taking money from everyone

to give to select businesses. It’s unfair,

inappropriate and it doesn’t grow the

economy. Lawmakers, on

the other hand, buy the

excuses that it is necessary

and important to continue

subsidizing select businesses. After

researching and tracking these

developments for decades, we can now

show just how much every lawmaker

who has served since 2001 has

approved in business subsidies.

Lawmakers have to pass public acts

before the state can take money

from some taxpayers and give it to

others through business subsidy

programs. So we assembled all the

laws that did so since we began

MichiganVotes.org, which provides

plain language descriptions of every

bill and amendment that goes through

the state Legislature and shows how

every legislator voted.

There were 71 laws that authorized

$16 billion in subsidies since 2001,

more than the value of the Lions, Tigers,

Pistons and Red Wings combined. Some

of those votes got to be messy, however,

with authorizations for new subsidies

wrapped up in bills that enacted major

changes. A 2007 law, for instance,

changed the structure of the state’s

business tax, but it also extended a

number of business subsidy programs.

To get a clear sense of where each

lawmaker stood on subsidies,

we stripped the list down to

just 37 bills that approved

$6 billion in subsidies.

We found that support for subsidies

was a bipartisan affair. The average

Republican voted to approve

$1.47 billion, while the average

Democrat approved $1.62 billion.

There was little opposition, as

43 percent of all lawmakers supported

every subsidy that came up for a vote.

Only 4 percent opposed every subsidy

that was approved during their tenure.

Opposition to business handouts tends

to be a recent phenomenon. That

4 percent is made of 22 lawmakers

— 21 Republicans and one Democrat

— and all of them were elected in 2008

or later.

Lawmakers are under immense

pressure from the people who get

the subsidies to pass these laws.

Stories about job losses or businesses

threatening to leave the state make

headlines — and not favorable ones.

A story about a promise of new jobs,

by contrast, can be a feather in a

lawmaker’s cap. But real growth

doesn’t come from the handful of

companies that are given taxpayer

cash by state politicians. The bulk of

job growth happens without subsidies.

The ineffectiveness of the subsidies,

however, does not negate the political

benefits from approving them. We

hope this scorecard will help hold

policymakers more accountable to

their constituents when it comes to

subsidizing favored businesses.

We’ve seen some evidence that it is

having an effect. Lawmakers who have

clean records on this scorecard are

pointing it out, while lawmakers that

don’t are being defensive about it.

That’s a good indicator our scorecard

has some consequences, but it is not

enough, by itself, to change lawmakers’

incentives. There has to be something

that resonates with their constituents.

And that’s the point. Business

subsidies have, unfortunately, been

popular enough to get broad bipartisan

support. But if we expose their

problems, if we can change people’s

minds about the issue and if we show

them how their own representatives

vote on this issue, there’s a chance that

we can also change the policy. ¬

James Hohman is director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center.

JAMES HOHMAN

FISCAL POLICY

To check out the scorecard results for yourself, visit michiganvotes.org/subsidies


VICTORY FOR MARK JANUS


In its June 27, 2018, decision, Janus

v. AFSCME, the U.S. Supreme Court

ushered in a new era for public

employees. In a 5-4 decision, Justice

Alito — writing for the majority

— asserted that public employees

have First Amendment rights to

freedom of speech and association

that protect them from being forced

to pay a union just to keep their

jobs. The Court’s decision in favor

of Mark Janus overturned the 1977

Supreme Court decision in Abood

v. Detroit Board of Education,

permitting government unions to

forcibly collect fees or dues from

public employees. But last month,

the court said its Janus decision

ends the “windfall that unions

have received under Abood for

the past 41 years.” That windfall,

it continued, had led to “billions

of dollars [being] taken from

nonmembers and transferred to

public-sector unions in violation of

the First Amendment.”

In many ways, the Janus holding

has the practical effect of making

all government workers right-

to-work. The number of private

and public sector workers that

are unionized is almost equal

(7.2 million public and 7.6 million

private). Of the 7.2 million public

sector workers, 2.2 million were

already right-to-work, so Janus

directly effects 5 million unionized

government workers. Previously,

those 5 million individuals had to

choose between paying full union

dues or, if they resigned from

the union, agency fees, which are

generally around 75 to 80 percent

of full dues. Though Janus does

not affect private sector workers,

it still represents a quantum leap

in freedom.

Since its inception, the Mackinac

Center has championed right-

to-work both in the private and

public sector, in Michigan and

throughout the country. This work,

in concert with the efforts of other

organizations committed to worker

freedom across the country, helped

set the stage for Janus.

As recently as 2009, the court

mentioned Abood in a ruling, but

not a single justice challenged its

validity. In September of that year,

the Center drew national attention

to public sector unionism when

we opened the Mackinac Center

Legal Foundation and challenged

a campaign to classify home-

based day care providers as public

employees and then unionize them.

By March 2011, we freed 45,000 day

care providers, many of whom were

small-business owners, from the

unionization scheme.

JANUS v. AFSCME

How the Mackinac Center's years advancing worker freedom in Michigan have paid off across the country

Left: Mark Janus alongside Mackinac Center heroes whose victories helped lead to the recent Supreme Court ruling.

The Center drew national attention to public sector unionism when we opened the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation and challenged a campaign to classify home-based day care providers as public employees and then unionize them.

VICTORY FOR MARK JANUS



That same month, legislators in

Wisconsin and Indiana fled their

states in an attempt to prevent votes

on labor reforms. In Wisconsin,

union supporters occupied the

state Capitol. A couple of months

later, the Supreme Court agreed to

hear Knox v. SEIU, and the majority

opinion in that case — decided in June

2012 — included a lengthy section

questioning Abood and the legality of

agency fees.

Also in 2012, the UAW and other

unions pushed for a constitutional

amendment that would prevent

right-to-work in Michigan and make

collective bargaining agreements

trump state law. The SEIU, whose

efforts to take money from home

health aides in a dues-skim operation

had been reversed by legislation,

tried to undo the law through a

second constitutional amendment.

In November 2012, voters rejected

both proposed amendments, and in

the next month, legislators turned

Michigan into a right-to-work state

for both private sector employees and

public sector employees not working

in public safety jobs.

Almost immediately, the Michigan

Education Association took up

aggressive tactics to make it harder

for members to leave and punish

those who did. The Mackinac Center

Legal Foundation has been battling

the MEA ever since.

In 2014, the Supreme Court decided

Harris v. Quinn, which had been

filed by the National Right to Work

Legal Defense Foundation, and held

that home help workers could not

be forced to pay agency fees. The

Mackinac Center amicus briefs in

that case highlighted our experience

shutting down the illegal home

help unionization in Michigan and

argued Abood should not apply to

home help workers, a position the

court eventually took. Harris was

a 5-4 decision; the majority heavily

criticized Abood, and the minority

defended it.

The future of Abood was directly

at issue in Friedrichs v. California

Teachers Association. The Mackinac

Center wrote two amicus briefs which

used deep dives into government

databases to show the impact on

unions when a state goes right-to-

work. They showed that unions could

survive in such an environment.

Justice Scalia’s 2016 death led to a

4-4 decision in Friedrichs, thereby

giving Abood a reprieve.

The Liberty Justice Center and

National Right to Work Legal Defense

Foundation already had Janus v.

AFSCME in the legal pipeline when

the court deadlocked on Friedrichs.

Their plaintiff was Mark Janus, a

child-support specialist who works

for the state of Illinois. Again, the

Mackinac Center took a deep dive into

what happens to unions in right-to-

work states. In the interim between

Friedrichs and Janus, the Center did

a 50-state survey, and the University

of Chicago Legal Forum published

its results.

This hard work was rewarded when

the Janus ruling cited the Mackinac

Center’s brief when addressing

the point that unions can survive

despite right-to-work. This point

was so important that the court

indirectly referenced back to it

three times. The court also cited

other data that was originally put

forward by the Mackinac Center in

Friedrichs. The Center’s amicus brief

discussed at length the MEA’s activity

after Michigan went to right-to-

work and suggested language that

might foreclose some of the union

resistance. Ultimately, the court held

that its decision applied immediately

to any agency fee payer — whether or

not there was a collective bargaining

agreement to the contrary.

While we are proud of the

contributions we made and pleased

with the court’s decision in Janus

v. AFSCME, we know that unions

and their legislative allies will do

everything they can to blunt its effect.

Once again, with your support, we will

battle them, whether in the courts of

law or the courts of public opinion, to

help enhance freedom. ¬

JANUS v. AFSCME

... the Michigan Education Association took up aggressive tactics to make it harder for members to leave and punish those who did. The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation has been battling the MEA ever since.



What will it take to upend the status

quo on a long-standing legal practice in

our state? We’re about to find out.

For centuries, courts have

had to decide whether to

release or detain criminal

defendants before their

trial. In weighing that decision, they

often require defendants to post a cash

bond, which has two purposes. One is

to keep potentially dangerous people

from society. Another is to ensure that

anyone who is a criminal defendant will

show up at trial.

But Michigan’s method of dealing with

criminal defendants awaiting trial is

ill-structured to achieve those

purposes. It operates on outdated

and incorrect assumptions about the

factors that predict when a defendant

is most likely to be arrested again or

fail to appear in court. Equally harmful,

it is based largely on the defendant’s

ability to pay, which results in unfair

outcomes for those charged with a

crime and unsatisfactory outcomes

for the public.

New research has shown us better

ways to achieve the goals we have set

for bail. Getting all the parties whose

job involves working with bail to agree

on what to do next, however, will be a

challenge, particularly if we want to

give a priority to both public safety

and fairness.

To that end, the Mackinac Center’s

criminal justice initiative has produced

a paper on the ins and outs of bail

here in Michigan. It explains how the

process works and why it should be

reformed. It also shows which states

offer good models for reform

and recommends specific

changes to help us develop

a fair and efficient way of

handling defendants who haven’t yet

been tried.

Here’s just one interesting fact from

the paper: Judges in Michigan don’t

have to hold a hearing before deciding

whether to let someone post bail, or,

if they allow bail, how much it will be.

Instead, they can issue “interim bond

schedules” — documents that list bail

amounts for a variety of crimes, much

like a restaurant menu. Furthermore,

judges can let law enforcement officers

collect this money directly from

the people they arrest, rather than

escort them to court for their own bail

hearing. In Midland County (where

the Mackinac Center is based), anyone

arrested on misdemeanor charges

must pay $125 to be released from

police custody.

Setting a blanket bail amount creates

two problems. First, it ensures

regressive outcomes that have an

outsized effect on people who are

unable to pay. If they’re too poor to

come up with the money, they risk

a host of collateral consequences,

including loss of employment, loss of

housing, loss of child custody and a

greater likelihood of an unfavorable

legal outcome in their case.

Second, the use of interim bond

schedules — the “bail menus” described

above — does not have a positive

effect on public safety, and may

even have a negative one. In Midland

County, someone charged with a crime

involving assault might go free if he can

afford to post bail. Someone charged

with a nonviolent, very minor crime,

meanwhile, might be stuck in jail,

which is disruptive to the community

and expensive for taxpayers.

The problematic practice of bond

schedules is just one of several

important issues that the paper

addresses. We want to encourage

policymakers to act on its

recommendations, so we held a policy

roundtable event the same week it was

released. We invited circuit and district

judges and magistrates, sheriffs and

chiefs of police, representatives from

the counties, prosecutors and defense

attorneys and policy scholars and

advocates. Many participants have said

they look forward to the opportunity

to develop a fair, modern and efficient

pretrial process.

Other states that decided to pursue

a broad consensus for reform took

months to do so, and we’re prepared

to do the same. By providing a tool

for understanding and a forum for

coalition-building, we’re ready to see

this opportunity through for a safer

and more prosperous Michigan. ¬

Kahryn Riley is director of criminal justice reform at the Mackinac Center.

What's Wrong with Bail Policy in MichiganNew research kicks off coalition devoted

to safe and effective practices

KAHRYN RILEY


CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY


Soon after it passed, the summer of

1988 was described as “the hottest in

more than a century.” Researchers

described the heat as

consistent and used a (then)

relatively new idea that

carbon dioxide emissions

from fossil fuels were building up in

the atmosphere, causing the Earth to

warm dangerously. Thirty years later,

we are being told that the worst dreams

of those early researchers have come

true, causing temperatures to spiral out

of control.

However tempting it may be to focus

on frightful headlines, we should

remember that climate is an ever-

changing, dynamic, and

highly complex system.

We should resist efforts

to reduce that system to a simplistic

notion that carbon dioxide, or CO2,

is the master control knob, leaving

everything else, like the sun, as little

more than statistical noise. Before

we rush to implement potentially

damaging or (at best) unsure fixes

based on that notion, we should answer

a few questions.

First, are increasing CO2 levels

unprecedented? Second, will the

measured warming be necessarily

harmful? Third, how should

we respond?

A telling quote from an early

researcher into the nation’s changing

climate can help to answer our first

question. This researcher noted,

“A change in our climate … is taking

place,” causing snow to be “less

Thirty Years of Climate ConcernsAnd technology and efficiency

are still our best bet

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

JASON HAYES



frequent and less deep,” melting almost

immediately after falling. He described

how “rivers, which then seldom failed

to freeze over in the course of the

winter, scarcely ever do now,” and that

an “unfortunate fluctuation between

heat and cold” during spring was “fatal

to fruits.”

These unnerving weather reports

mirror anecdotal evidence we’re

hearing from Michigan’s ski hill

operators about the first snowfalls

of the season coming later and melts

coming earlier. But one key factor

separates these disparate climate

reports: time. The early researcher

was Thomas Jefferson, in his 1787

book “Notes on the State of Virginia,”

published long before any SUVs began

rolling off Michigan’s assembly lines.

Atmospheric changes also occur

on much longer timescales, and in

a geologic sense, the level of CO2

in the atmosphere now (410 parts

per million, or ppm) is certainly

not unusual. In fact, Will Happer, a

physicist from Princeton University,

actually argued in his testimony before

the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on

Space, Science, and Competitiveness

that the Earth is currently in a CO2

famine. Happer noted that the Earth

has typically had atmospheric CO2

levels of “many thousands of parts

per million.” Preindustrial levels of


CO2 — 280 ppm — were, he added,

dangerously close to 150 ppm, the point

at which plants die from CO2 starvation

and all life on Earth ceases to exist.

To answer the next question — whether

a warming climate will be harmful — it

is worthwhile to also ask, “How much

warming do we expect?” For that

answer, we typically look to climate

models. But, the climate models relied

on by researchers and governments

have historically and chronically

overpredicted the warming associated

with human-generated greenhouse gas

emissions. For example, one recently

published study in the American

Meteorological Society's Journal of

Climate found that climate models

routinely inflate the sensitivity of

Earth’s atmosphere to CO2 emissions

by as much as 45 percent.

That’s actually an important statistic,

because most climate policy is based on

something called Equilibrium Climate

Sensitivity. If, as this paper found, the

ECS is low, then climate change may

not be much of a problem. It could even

prove to be beneficial. But if it is high,

as the climate models predict, it could

be a much larger problem for humans

and our environment.

If we do not have 100 percent certainty

about the actual impacts of a changing

climate, the question of what to do

about the reported warming becomes

more difficult to answer. Judith Curry,

a former tenured professor and chair

of the school of Earth and atmospheric

sciences at the Georgia Institute of

Technology, co-authored the previously

mentioned study on climate models.

She suggests that the best plan is to

employ a pragmatic, “no regrets” style

of energy policy. This policy recognizes

that immediate and drastic cuts in our

most reliable and affordable energy

sources — like natural gas — would

have massive and immediate negative

effects on human health and well-

being, because they would limit access

to life-preserving energy.

Some groups say that our approach

to fossil fuels should be “leave it in

the ground” in the name of stopping

climate change. Rather than follow

that prescription, though, we should

continue to develop and deploy more

efficient and clean technologies and

energy sources — like natural gas and

nuclear energy. Doing so ensures we

have affordable and reliable access

to essential energy, and that we can

continue to lead the relatively healthy

and comfortable lives we now enjoy.

It also ensures we can lead our lives

in an increasingly clean environment,

still protected from what has always

been a potentially dangerous and

volatile climate. ¬

Jason Hayes is the director of environmental policy at the Mackinac Center.


Almost every town in Michigan now

has a craft brewery, local winery or

distillery. Some have all three. The

artisan alcohol industry is booming

across the country, but Michigan has

emerged as a top state for the business.

We have some of the best craft brewers

anywhere. The regulations around

those brewers, however, leave a lot to

be desired.

At a recent Issues and Ideas Forum, we

heard from Antony Davies, an associate

professor of economics at Duquesne

University; Jarrett Dieterle, director

of commercial freedom policy at the

R Street Institute; and Jim Storey,

a former member of the Michigan

Liquor Control Commission. All three

gave valuable insights into the state of

alcohol regulation in Michigan.

People generally think that alcohol

regulations improve public safety, but

all three panelists gave compelling

reasons to reconsider that premise.

Davies gave an overview of research

that showed having a higher density

of establishments selling alcohol

corresponded to a decrease in fatal

alcohol-related vehicle accidents —

if alcohol is close enough, there is no

need to drive to get it. Studies also

show that the degree to which states

control access to alcohol does not

correlate to the amount of alcohol their

residents consume.

Dieterle traced the origin of some of

the country’s more ridiculous liquor

controls back to the era following

Prohibition. Some examples include

Indiana’s Warm Beer Law, Virginia’s law

against advertising happy hour specials

and Michigan’s recently repealed rule

against liquor stores setting up within

half a mile of each other. He noted

that the alcohol industry is second

only to plastics for manufacturing job

growth, but it is “operating this new-age

phenomenon of the craft spirits market

in the context of a 70-to-80-year-old

regulatory regime.”

Storey gave his insight as a former

regulator of alcohol. Regulators, he

said, should only be concerned with

three things: not selling to minors, not

overserving patrons and making sure

that alcohol sellers and producers are

not abusing the substance themselves

or involved in criminal activity. While

the current regulatory regime is meant

to handle these tasks, it is often more

concerned with processing licenses or

determining whether advertisements

on doormats violate its rules.

Michigan has more restrictive alcohol

regulations than most neighboring

states, but some commonsense reforms

would help the industry continue

to grow and improve here, without

jeopardizing public safety. And that can

only be a good thing. ¬

A transcript and video recording of every Issues & Ideas forum can be found at mackinac.org/events.

Beer Glut: The Overregulation of Alcohol in MichiganEvent examines how and why state should reduce alcohol regulation

Jim Storey, Antony Davies and Jarrett Dieterle talk about alcohol regulation in Michigan.


LIFE and LIBERTY with Geneva Ruppert Wise

Geneva Ruppert Wise is editor of IMPACT.

My husband and I met in Austria, got married here

in Michigan, and lived in several other states in

between, but I think it was still a shock to a few

people when we recently announced our plans to

move to New Zealand.

As we wrap up our lives in the Great Lakes State

(for now, at least), I’ve tried my best to leave no

ends untied. I have plenty to do: Sending dozens of

extremely important documents to the other side of

the world, spending as much time as possible with

friends and family while we can, getting used to the

idea of spending my January birthday on the beach.

(Some burdens are easier to bear than others!)

For the last three years, I’ve used this column to

share my thoughts on how liberty intertwines

with all aspects of our personal lives — optimism,

pessimism, goodwill, risk, the future, even travel.

So I’m thinking about all of those topics now, as I

write my final column here and look toward a future

that is as exciting as it is uncertain.

Every time I travel, I learn something new about

myself and gain a deeper appreciation for my own

culture and history by experiencing others. But my

travels thus far have always had an end date, even

if they lasted for months. This time I will have to

learn something completely different: How to be a

member of a new society.

I’m not a stranger to life abroad, so I know I will be

absolutely terrified to board that plane when the

time comes. Life begins at the end of your comfort

zone, but it’s so much more fun to say it than to

practice it, especially in the first few weeks. I also

know that those feelings pass as the adventure

kicks off. You have to try to be brave, while

acknowledging some cowardice.

I think of liberty as an exercise in consistency, and

I suspect that is why I have been willing to spend

so much of my life on it. In my philosophy, there is

almost always a clear right and wrong, and very few

gray areas. But this move will add another personal

contradiction to my already considerable collection

(libertarian/Smith College alumna being my current

favorite). I will soon be both a passionate American

and an expatriate, a woman neither at home

nor abroad.

We must frequently redefine ourselves in life.

Families multiply, subtract and divide. Jobs and

friends come and go. Pastimes and hobbies shift

and change along with circumstances, health and

interests. I will no longer spend 40 hours each week

advancing liberty in Michigan, or indeed anywhere.

I will no longer have a map of where I live attached

to my wrist.

Fortunately, principles stay the same. I will still

know that life is about the choices we make and the

freedom we have to make them. I will still know

that we are better off when we assume the best of

intentions, swan dive into the deep end (or in my

case, the South Pacific) and look toward the future

with hope and optimism. That’s exactly what I plan

to do. ¬

A Fond Farewell

BY THE NUMBERS CORPORATE WELFARE

498 —

Number of state lawmakers that have served since 2001

22 —

Number of legislators that voted against every business subsidy that was authorized during their tenure

$1.6 billion —

Amount of business subsidies approved by the

average Democrat

$1.5 billion —

Amount of business subsidies approved by the

average Republican

140 West Main Street, P.O. Box 568 Midland, Michigan 48640

George Gallup, the son of a Nebraska dairy farmer, once

told Time magazine that he was obsessed with numbers

and measurement. As a student at the University of Iowa

and editor of The Daily Iowan in the 1920s, he wanted to

know precisely who was reading his newspaper

and which parts they liked best.

In those days, a common way to gauge reader

interest was to yank the crossword puzzle out

of the paper for a week and count how many

people complained, according to Time. But

Gallup was different. With his newspaper in

hand, he confronted readers directly and asked

them exactly what they liked and didn’t like

about it.

Gallup’s interest in data led him to a career as perhaps our

country’s best-known public opinion pollster. At its peak,

his American Institute of Public Opinion — what we know

as the Gallup Poll — operated in a dozen countries and

released opinion data to newspapers four times a week.

Gallup wasn’t always right, but he was right often enough

that opinion polling and surveys are now part of the

American mainstream, including at the Mackinac Center

for Public Policy.

In June we conducted our second annual donor survey,

inviting supporters to share feedback about why they

support the freedom movement and the Mackinac Center.

We asked them which free-market issues are most

important and why. We also invited donors to share

information about themselves and give us feedback on

our effectiveness, both in advancing policy and in treating

our donors well.

If you are one of the supporters who took this survey,

then please know how much we appreciate your feedback.

When you tell us what matters to you and share your

ideas, you are making an invaluable contribution that

helps the Mackinac Center hone our thinking, make the

most of our strengths and address our weaknesses.

This year in particular, your responses will help

the freedom movement around the country.

That is because, like the Mackinac Center,

dozens of free-market think tanks surveyed

their donors in June with the help of the

consulting firm American Philanthropic. After

combining and analyzing the confidential

responses from all the participating groups,

American Philanthropic will share its findings

and give advice on how well the freedom movement is

doing at spreading its message, engaging supporters and

attracting new members.

We look forward to sharing the Mackinac Center’s results

as well as the national findings. Look for them in a future

issue of IMPACT.

Gallup wasn’t always right. He and other pollsters

famously failed to predict President Harry S. Truman’s

victory over Thomas Dewey. Later, Gallup said that his

firm quit polling too soon before Election Day.

Here at the Mackinac Center, we recognize that donor

surveys are a guide, not a decree. Circumstances and

opinion change over time. So while we continue to

survey our donors, it is our hope that you feel free as

Mackinac Center supporters to contact us whenever

you’d like to share your opinion. You can do that by calling

us at 989-631-0900 and asking to speak to a member

of the Advancement department, or sending an email

to me at [email protected]. Thank you again for

your support. ¬

Lorie Shane is managing director of advancement at the Mackinac Center.

LORIE SHANE

Thank You For Telling Us What Matters to You

VICTORY FOR MARK JANUS

Documents

Transcript of VICTORY FOR MARK JANUS